5 ms·

> Programmers are known to not have a strong suit for art related disciplines Full stop. There are quite a few coders with artistic talents. And even if some s

> Programmers are known to not have a strong suit for art related disciplines Full stop. There are quite a few coders with artistic talents. And even if some specific individual does not have such talent, they are allowed to have their own taste - we do not need to train ourselves to mimic other people's preferences.

zwnow 10mo ago
Gotta agree, I used to draw portraits before I started programming a few years ago... For reference, my last ever portrait: https://imgur.com/a/sEQiLu4 https://imgur.com/a/sEQiLu4 I also know plenty of programmers who are great musicians. Programming itself is creative work... Completely lost interest in art due to AI though.
- engeljohnb 10mo ago
  I would wager that's how it goes for most people that are both good artists and good programmers -- they were artists first, then learned to program. It takes a lot longer to become a reasonably good artist than it does to become a reasonably good programmer. I suspect that might be why the article opens the way it does.
  - spankibalt 10mo ago
    > "It takes a lot longer to become a reasonably good artist than it does to become a reasonably good programmer." Such overgeneralizations are not helpful. People gravitate stronger towards certain creative disciplines, or a selection of them; how long it exactly takes to develop-out "reasonable" skills is dependent on a litany of factors, some of which cannot be controlled (e. g. force majeure). Both programming and pixel art requires unwavering commitment and exercise´; there is no way to "wing it" if you are intellectually honest and take your craft seriously.
    - engeljohnb 10mo ago
      I think it is helpful for certain purposes, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find exceptions to the general rule. Art is all about repetition. Even if you've done it successfully many times, you still need to keep doing it until it's second nature. Programming is more like solving puzzles. Once you've solved it once, you can pull the solution out of your head as many times as you need, as long as you still remember it. With art, it doesn't matter if you remember how to do it, it still takes practice to get reproducible results. Of course it takes longer.
      - spankibalt 10mo ago
        > "Art is all about repetition. [...] Programming is more like solving puzzles. Once you've solved it once, you can pull the solution out of your head as many times as you need, as long as you still remember it. With art, it doesn't matter if you remember how to do it, it still takes practice to get reproducible results. Of course it takes longer." First and foremost, contrary to you it seems, I see art as a measure of quality, not as a simple descriptor of manifestations of human personal, and therefore cultural, expression (albeit using a, naturally technically imprecise, colloquialism such as "pixel art" to describe a school of aesthetics, or style). See also: The Art of Programming. Et cetera. And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems, rationally or intuitively; in both it takes practice to get reproducible results, in both you need to keep doing it until it becomes "second nature". This refers to the process itself, the process to hone one's craft.
        engeljohnb 10mo ago
        >I see art as a measure of quality. I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean to say the worth of an artwork for you is tied to how well it executes technque? "Art" is a word so nebulous that it's hard to pin down a definition, but I think the millions of people that prefer a punk rock song over an academic figure drawing study would disagree with this. >And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems Well, I'm both an artist and a programmer, and I can tell you I engage in neither to solve problems. I do both because the process of doing them is enjoyable. If they stop being fun, I'll stop doing them, and there wouldn't be any lingering problem in my life to go unsolved. If you say you picked up art faster than programming I'll believe you, because I only meant it as a general observation. Art is like playing Dark Souls -- maybe you beat the hardest boss once, but that doesn't mean you won't die ten more times before beating them again. Programming is like Zelda. Once you know the solutions to the puzzles, you're basically going through the motions. This isn't me guessing based on philosophy -- this is my lived experience as both an artist and a programmer.
airstrike 10mo ago
Just because they are "[generally] known" for not having artistic skills doesn't mean there can't be a few exceptions. Besides, they could be known for this and it could be a misconception! The sentence is still true. Finally, "full stop" is what you say when something isn't up for debate. It's like saying "Apple makes better hardware, period." Like the conversation ends there. It doesn't mean you stop reading.
- piafraus 10mo ago
  Have you ever heard the famous "he did not have enough imagination to become a mathematician" quote? There is a reason it is famous and it could be very much projected on programming. Programming requires be creative. So I don't know where did the "generally known" comes from. In my 20 years experience, I knew hundreds of programmers and probably majority of them were extremely artistic. Writing games as a hobby, drawing miniatures, some were writing books, music bands... > Finally, "full stop" is what you say when something isn't up for debate. Is it the only way you can say "full stop"? Can't you just say it to yourself in the way of "full stop, this shows ME this is based on wrong premise, and I don't need to waste time on keep reading it"
  - stavros 10mo ago
    This debate strikes me as misguided. It's just basically "someone who's really good at one thing is unlikely to be really good at a second thing". Well yeah, there are only so many hours you can put towards a thing. It's not a statement about programmers or artists, it's just about how effort works.
- 7bit 10mo ago
  Why is it generally known? It's a completely anecdotal statement, that the author should have just avoided. General statements like that are hard or impossible to prove and insensitive to those it does do wrong.
- numpad0 10mo ago
  yeah, it's just that programmers tend to have self images as ultimate polymaths, and such a person can't have poor taste in art, therefore...
NewsaHackO 10mo ago
Yes, I agree. It comes off as condescending. I guess he is trying to peddle pixel art assets, so gatekeeping is beneficial to his future sales.
throwaway314155 10mo ago
As someone who in fact _doesn't_ have a strong suit for art (and is a programmer) - I don't feel this is an unfair statement. It says "programmers are known" which is not an absolute statement but more of a vibe - and it's a vibe I would definitely say is true on average. Does that discount your personal experience as an artist? Of course not! That would just be reading into the phrasing way too much.

zwnow 10mo ago

Gotta agree, I used to draw portraits before I started programming a few years ago... For reference, my last ever portrait: https://imgur.com/a/sEQiLu4 https://imgur.com/a/sEQiLu4 I also know plenty of programmers who are great musicians. Programming itself is creative work... Completely lost interest in art due to AI though.

engeljohnb 10mo ago
I would wager that's how it goes for most people that are both good artists and good programmers -- they were artists first, then learned to program. It takes a lot longer to become a reasonably good artist than it does to become a reasonably good programmer. I suspect that might be why the article opens the way it does.
- spankibalt 10mo ago
  > "It takes a lot longer to become a reasonably good artist than it does to become a reasonably good programmer." Such overgeneralizations are not helpful. People gravitate stronger towards certain creative disciplines, or a selection of them; how long it exactly takes to develop-out "reasonable" skills is dependent on a litany of factors, some of which cannot be controlled (e. g. force majeure). Both programming and pixel art requires unwavering commitment and exercise´; there is no way to "wing it" if you are intellectually honest and take your craft seriously.
  - engeljohnb 10mo ago
    I think it is helpful for certain purposes, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find exceptions to the general rule. Art is all about repetition. Even if you've done it successfully many times, you still need to keep doing it until it's second nature. Programming is more like solving puzzles. Once you've solved it once, you can pull the solution out of your head as many times as you need, as long as you still remember it. With art, it doesn't matter if you remember how to do it, it still takes practice to get reproducible results. Of course it takes longer.
    - spankibalt 10mo ago
      > "Art is all about repetition. [...] Programming is more like solving puzzles. Once you've solved it once, you can pull the solution out of your head as many times as you need, as long as you still remember it. With art, it doesn't matter if you remember how to do it, it still takes practice to get reproducible results. Of course it takes longer." First and foremost, contrary to you it seems, I see art as a measure of quality, not as a simple descriptor of manifestations of human personal, and therefore cultural, expression (albeit using a, naturally technically imprecise, colloquialism such as "pixel art" to describe a school of aesthetics, or style). See also: The Art of Programming. Et cetera. And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems, rationally or intuitively; in both it takes practice to get reproducible results, in both you need to keep doing it until it becomes "second nature". This refers to the process itself, the process to hone one's craft.
      - engeljohnb 10mo ago
        >I see art as a measure of quality. I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean to say the worth of an artwork for you is tied to how well it executes technque? "Art" is a word so nebulous that it's hard to pin down a definition, but I think the millions of people that prefer a punk rock song over an academic figure drawing study would disagree with this. >And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems Well, I'm both an artist and a programmer, and I can tell you I engage in neither to solve problems. I do both because the process of doing them is enjoyable. If they stop being fun, I'll stop doing them, and there wouldn't be any lingering problem in my life to go unsolved. If you say you picked up art faster than programming I'll believe you, because I only meant it as a general observation. Art is like playing Dark Souls -- maybe you beat the hardest boss once, but that doesn't mean you won't die ten more times before beating them again. Programming is like Zelda. Once you know the solutions to the puzzles, you're basically going through the motions. This isn't me guessing based on philosophy -- this is my lived experience as both an artist and a programmer.

airstrike 10mo ago

Just because they are "[generally] known" for not having artistic skills doesn't mean there can't be a few exceptions. Besides, they could be known for this and it could be a misconception! The sentence is still true. Finally, "full stop" is what you say when something isn't up for debate. It's like saying "Apple makes better hardware, period." Like the conversation ends there. It doesn't mean you stop reading.

piafraus 10mo ago
Have you ever heard the famous "he did not have enough imagination to become a mathematician" quote? There is a reason it is famous and it could be very much projected on programming. Programming requires be creative. So I don't know where did the "generally known" comes from. In my 20 years experience, I knew hundreds of programmers and probably majority of them were extremely artistic. Writing games as a hobby, drawing miniatures, some were writing books, music bands... > Finally, "full stop" is what you say when something isn't up for debate. Is it the only way you can say "full stop"? Can't you just say it to yourself in the way of "full stop, this shows ME this is based on wrong premise, and I don't need to waste time on keep reading it"
- stavros 10mo ago
  This debate strikes me as misguided. It's just basically "someone who's really good at one thing is unlikely to be really good at a second thing". Well yeah, there are only so many hours you can put towards a thing. It's not a statement about programmers or artists, it's just about how effort works.
7bit 10mo ago
Why is it generally known? It's a completely anecdotal statement, that the author should have just avoided. General statements like that are hard or impossible to prove and insensitive to those it does do wrong.
numpad0 10mo ago
yeah, it's just that programmers tend to have self images as ultimate polymaths, and such a person can't have poor taste in art, therefore...

NewsaHackO 10mo ago

Yes, I agree. It comes off as condescending. I guess he is trying to peddle pixel art assets, so gatekeeping is beneficial to his future sales.

throwaway314155 10mo ago

As someone who in fact _doesn't_ have a strong suit for art (and is a programmer) - I don't feel this is an unfair statement. It says "programmers are known" which is not an absolute statement but more of a vibe - and it's a vibe I would definitely say is true on average. Does that discount your personal experience as an artist? Of course not! That would just be reading into the phrasing way too much.